Do you play to win or do you play for fun?

[The Emperor Fabulous]

I play for fun AND to win...however, if I'm playing multiplayer, I play to win...that's just my nature

[Jethro83]

I (understandably) prefer to win. But what good is the win if the game wasn't any fun to begin with? Even though winning is the only acceptable option in single player for me, multiplayer changes everything.

I play as a learning experience. And though you can learn through victory, defeat brings more lessons to mind. Though I aim to win, and I try to plan to win, losing to a worthy opponent who didn't have to resort to cheating/exploits to do it is just as satisfying. In fact my most satisfying game of AoM was actually a defeat.

[Sarxis]

I play to win funnly.

[Arrian]

I'm a bit of a "sandbox" gamer at heart. I'm a perfectionist when it comes to my empire. I play on the highest level I feel I can still achieve most of my (pretty ridiculous) goals on. In the case of CivIII, this means Monarch. It also means that MP doesn't really appeal to me. The only MP games I'm in are demogames, where it's team vs. team - I have backup (or am the backup, more likely). I feel like playing a standard MP game would be too much stress - I'd want to play "perfectly" because I know I'm up against humans who are smart and will kill me if I screw up. Too much pressure... saps the enjoyment.

I'm not one who feels the need for a stiff challenge, like many of the other strategy forum guys. Occasionally I do, and so Emperor (or higher) is there if I want it. But generally I'm more into creating my perfect empire, or perfect city, or whatever. Tough competition would screw that up, no matter how good I got at the game (again, my goals are kinda ridiculous).

Civ is the game I'm probably the most competitive about - I actually cared about moving up in difficulty and improving my play. In other games, like Pirates or Railroad Tycoon, I just played. It's not that I ignored improving my game, it's just that it was less important to me than with Civ. Then again, Civ's my favorite.

-Arrian

[vmxa1]

I vote fun, because I would rather have a great game and lose, than play crappy and win. That is how I played all my sports. Go al out to win, but when it is done, I want to have had fun.
way back in my racket sports it was better to be beaten by a better player and played my best, than to beat an inferior player and played poorly.

A few great stories have been posted that sounded so exciting and the player lost in maybe a vote or something.

[Zero]

Lord azrael, vmxa:

Originally posted by Zero


Ok. you pointed out something good. Within people who play to win, there are two types of ppl.

-Ones who play to win, and will only play when they can win. (Non comps who satisfy their egos/ self esteem)
-Ones who play to win, and will try to win even when they have almost no hopes. (Competitive ones who challenge themselves)

Sounds like to me, you play to win, but your the latter example.

I postyed this before and it also seems to apply to you. so basically u play to win.

[Blake]

I kinda play to win half the time, and half the time I just play for fun. You could say I define my own wins, sometimes winning is being the best, other times to act in the most chaotic way, or prehaps prolonging the game for as long as possible without having a hope of winning (ie hide the farm tatics in strategy games), sometimes I roleplay in a serious way. I enjoy being creative in any game, and being competitive really hampers that because winning mostly comes down to abusing imbalance - or doing the same thing as everyone else, but better.

One could define winning as "Getting what you want out of the game", sometimes all I really want in a game is to make the other playing think "What the? I've never seen anyone do THAT before". I'm not a competitive person, and the pressure from playing to win really does sap the enjoyment - as much as possible I try to avoid it.

In warcraft 3 with other players I will do anything, from playing deadly serious to win, to having a tree cutting blight-spreading nonsense competition with friends where the only goal is to do the whackiest things. I even engage in the exciting sport of backstabbing, ranging from pretending to have no mouse to outright backstabs to playing the best I can but studiously ignoring my teamates or even something completely random like building a grid of farms over as much of the map as possible - sometimes I have a change of heart and decide to win after all. I certainitely have no driving compulsion to see the "You have won" screen.

In some games there is far less scope for creativity or whackiness, like Chess or the Command and Conquer series. I happened to be unusually good at C&C Generals and played my way to near the top of the ladder, interestingly enough it was my losses I cherished more than my wins, for so few could beat me - wins were a dime a dozen, but a loss - that was really unsual! My most memorable C&C:G game was a loss.

To conclude this pointless rambling I think for me being creative and the learning of a game are more important than actually winning, altough I admit the odd powertrip is enjoyable.

[DrSpike]

I think a key distinction is SP/MP. People play SP for fun, and often play the game the way they want to to achieve that, even if it is not the optimal way to play.

MP can be played just for fun, with friends, but if you are still playing after a couple of weeks you usually take the game seriously enough to want to learn how to win.

[Traianvs]

When I play AoK with my friends I always win even when i'm alone and they're allied. Therefore they don't want to play the game anymore because I sort of spoil the game for them

Unfortunately I can only play with them (don't have a legal copy) so what I have to do is give them a chance. For example no attacking in the first half hour or something. It can be pretty exciting then if you handicap yourself...

or in an FPS when I play against noobs and I see they won't ever hit me, I just let them kill me a few times

[EternalSpearman]

So, you say you play to win. The question is: if you are playing to win, but not to have fun, whats the point? Games are FOR fun. If you don't have fun playing a game, why play it?

[NeOmega]

FUN. I learned how to do it while working at an LAN gaming center. I'd get so many newbies in there all the time, I'd have to limit myself, or try different things, to keep it interesting for me. ANd that trait has stuck.

[Az]

I play for fun, but winning is part of the fun. In civ, for example, I don't get worked up if I lose, sometimes, since I was playing perfectionist small heaven, so I don't mind that.

[Zero]

Originally posted by EternalSpearman
So, you say you play to win. The question is: if you are playing to win, but not to have fun, whats the point? Games are FOR fun. If you don't have fun playing a game, why play it?

I play to win cause playing to win IS fun. Like many people who said they play to win said, if it wasnt fun to win, we wouldnt be playing in the first place. I enjoy competition and it wouldnt be fun for me (nor my opponent) if we werent playing to win. There would be no enjoyment in playing mind game agst each other trying to read ahead of each other moves and try to thwart his goal (which is to beat me)

NeOmega, how long would that last though? Playing agst inferior players isnt fun at all. I used to do that playing not seriously when I got too good compared to my friends around me... but it eventually gets boring (theres only so much fun you can have with no competition for me... even if i use one hand etc and try hard to even out things). I think the best solution is (if it is internet game) search for better comp online, (or if it isnt internet game and you're hardcore about it) search the area around you for better comp (thru forums etc). Otherwise games gona be eventually boring so fast.

[EternalSpearman]

Exactly. You play to win, because you have fun winning. So, isn't that pretty much the same as playing to have fun?

[Zero]

Originally posted by EternalSpearman
Exactly. You play to win, because you have fun winning. So, isn't that pretty much the same as playing to have fun?

No. Cause process of winning is fun for me.

Its not to say, I play games just for fun, but I mainly play games to win. And if game cannot provide me a sense of achievement thru winning (or getting me closer to winning agst players that are better than me) than i wont have fun.